1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

On November 27, 2019, at the time of the accident, the Plaintiff’s vehicle CD at the time of the accident, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the situation of the collision with the vehicle in Jung-gu Seoul Jung-gu, Seoul, was moving from the two lanes to the one lane after the illegal internship in the part adjacent to the Defendant’s vehicle, and the vehicle was changed from the two lanes to the one lane, and 3,698,580 won (the Plaintiff’s vehicle driver’s loss of business suspension, medical expenses, consolation money) was paid for the collision of the Plaintiff vehicle.

1. The circumstances leading to the instant accident are as follows.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 7, Eul evidence 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant vehicle was caused by the unilateral negligence of the defendant vehicle due to an accident that occurred while changing the lane from the two lanes to the one one after the illegal internship.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's vehicle could sufficiently grasp the illegal internship of the defendant's vehicle, and that even though the distance with the defendant's vehicle was reasonable, the defendant did not take appropriate measures to avoid the accident, and therefore, the plaintiff's vehicle's negligence should be recognized at least 30%.

B. Determination 1) In light of the following circumstances that can be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the evidence as mentioned above and the overall purport of pleadings, namely, the fact that the Defendant’s vehicle invadeds the center line, and entered the lane again from the two lanes to the one lane thereafter. On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was erroneous in failing to take measures to avoid an accident by reducing the speed, etc. although it was possible to recognize the illegal internship of the Defendant’s vehicle, and other circumstances indicated in the record, the accident of this case occurred concurrently with the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle, and the percentage thereof is reasonable to 10:90 in light of the aforementioned various circumstances.